Was the Reformation an Experiment gone wrong?

[Pfaffenhofen]

The EOC is making some progress in the U.S. - even in the South - in the form of the Orthodox Church of America. The OOs - okay, I'll give you that one. But the RCC is not the only one spreading. But RCC growth in the U.S. remains stagnant. Oddly enough, the fastest growing denomination that calls themselves Christian is the Mormon church!
While the UMC (my denomination) has decreased in the US, it has grown rapidly in Asia and Africa, especially the latter. Pretty good beacon of light if you ask me.

The question is the root of the Church.
If one uses the root of the free interpretation of the Bible, it leads to shattering of the Church. If we have today 30 thousand, in 1000 years God knows where it leads.
If one uses the root of "You are Peter and on this rock I will build much Church" you have the Unity of the Church. Christ is One, not many.

 

[MPaul]

where in the Bible does it say that it is the only place Truth is determined? Truth is Christ, and Christ is The Church. The one he founded.

Protestants have a different bible due to depending on Scriptural principles for how the bible is determined. Have you read the whole thread?

When Moses prepared the people to meet God, they were terrified, and they asked Moses merely to be God's spokesman. God agreed that he would use prophets to speak to them, whose writings were placed in the temple. However, God gave the people criteria for recognizing an accredited prophet. The people only had to listen to an accredited prophet, and others who merely presumed they were God's spokesman were to be stoned to death. When there was no prophet, the people had the writings of the prophets.

 

[MPaul]

It rejected Holy Tradition, and that's a good thing? To reject something that's Holy? If it's false, it ain't Holy, brother. Holy Tradition, though, is guided by the Holy Ghost.

No -- are you posting without having read the thread. I've already explained that Holy Tradition is based on the ghost of the Roman Empire.

 

[MPaul]

Proof that Hitler wanted to kill the Pope??? At any rate, God said His Church would prevail against all evil...

I believe it is in Hitler's "Table Talk." That is where he expressed his true beliefs on Christianity. At any rate, John Cromwell's book sets it out, what Hitler's plan was for the Pope. I could look it up the support he cites -- but I don't know if I have it here in the house.

At any rate, what is your position? That Hitler wanted to be buddies with the Pope? Hmm... the Vatican embassy in Berlin did give a birthday party for Hitler every year, even after he died. At least the Protestants stopped that from becoming a tradition. Hitler and Mussolini were able to come to power due to agreements signed with the Vatican removing Catholic opposition. So... the Vicar of Christ got that part wrong, don't you think?

 

[MPaul]

The only thing all Protestants agree on is Christ is Lord and the Catholic Church is wrong.
As to your statement that truth is authority, who has the authority to determine truth?? Christ and those he appointed, who were guided by the Holy Spirit.
As to your PS, you say that like the Catholic Church advocates stoning Protestants? Nope, never, no way, no how.

You're not really reading the thread --- I never said the Catholic church advocated stoning Protestants. However, now that you bring it up, they do have a long, ugly history of hunting down Protestants and killing them in mass. In England, under bloody Mary, the Catholics hunted down people who had bibles and did study groups in their homes. They took their bible from them and burned them at the stake. The stench of human flesh burning was everywhere.

However, such killing of Protestants did lead to the right to own a bible being the very first right of an Englishman, the principles on which led to the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment, which was an expression of the theory of denominationalism before 1947, when the Supreme Court changed it to "Separation of Church and State." However, Roger Williams was the first to use that phrase, and he did so as an expression of the theory of denominationalism, not secular humanism as the Court has made it.

I just did a response on why it is the bible we look to for truth.

On core doctrine, again, you are ignoring what already has been said it is in the thread.

 

[MPaul]

Why so many cores?
Why dont you use the RCC core and let's be together and ONE?

You are twisting what I have said about the core. There are not so many cores. There is one, but there are many ways to express the core, and particular churches will add peripheral matters for membership in their church. The core is what is in common in all the churches' statement of faith as I have designated.

The RCC's Holy Tradition is a delusion that is an extremely ugly way of practicing the Christian faith -- which has resulted from it being a lie. It is better to have a smaller group united in truth, than a big group united in a lie.

 

[MPaul]

I read and I do not agree.
And sorry, I am sad. And if you think it is me, no it is not. The Catholics feel the same, and, I tell you, the Pope feels the same.
Everytime a Protestant Church does something that sets her away from the RCC, it is a spear in our hearts.
Pray that they may be One, it was the wish of the Lord.
Tell you, it is not easy to anybody to understand the shattering of the Protestant Churches.
There are things that you are missing, for theological reasons, and that are our core: the Body and Blood of Christ, Confession, being the main ones. You miss Eucharist, you miss a lot. These are not peripheral issues.

There is no freedom of conscience if you want to follow Christ. You must be the slave of Christ, as Mary told: "Here is, I am the slave of God".

I have freedom of conscience in the RCC in the way, if I do not agree I may leave anytime. We are not prisoners of the Pope. I may leave now. BUT, if I want to be of God, I must empty myself, as St Paul said, and fill myself of the God's Grace.

Catholics have to misrepresent what the theory of denominationalism is... because the Protestants uphold the bible as truth, and the Catholics hate that... that is why they killed so many Protestants for owning bibles, until it became obvious that they could not kill them all, due to the printing press making so many bibles available and the strength of Protestant armies in northern Europe.

But that is all you are doing -- misrepresenting what denominationalism is. It is focusing on Spiritual unity, while the Catholics focus on institutional unity, which has lead to so much abuse in Christianity.

 

[MPaul]

Would you help, please: what was your idea of experiment gone wrong?

Do you know that the word "Protestant" is the term for us because the Catholic church forced it on us. Originally, Protestants called themselves "Reformers." Catholics had to have it changed, because it represented the truth, and they could not answer the Reformers honestly.

The bible notes that only inspired prophets speak for God, and we have their writings, Scripture. As I noted previously, the Catholic church added what was considered divine about the Roman Empire to Christianity (and the Empire was very much considered divine by ancient people and a special social paradigm by everyone in Europe up until the time of Napoleon), and they made up a new bible, and they placed themselves above the bible, and they acted as God's spokesman contrary to the principles of the bible.... and it was all a long ugly experiment that damaged the true spirit of the bible and Christianity.

 

[MPaul]

This is what everybody calls Tradition.

Now you are playing games with the word tradition. It has more than one meaning. However, "Holy Tradition" is a form of Catholic authority outside of the bible. That is what the Protestants rejected, that there can be an authority equal to or above the bible. Protestant doctrine is quite different than Catholic Holy Tradition --- but the word "traditional" can be used in other senses, and Catholics take advantage of the different meanings to set out Protestant positions dishonestly.

 

[MPaul]

Pfaffenhofen,

If you want to bring Protestants back to the RCC, all you have to do is refute those parts of the bible which set out what the bible is. That is the real problem. Mumbling constantly about there are too many denominations accomplishes nothing. The Catholics have a whole different concept of what the bible is --- prove we are wrong on our concept of the bible, or you are just wasting everyone's time.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Protestants have a different bible due to depending on Scriptural principles for how the bible is determined. Have you read the whole thread?

When Moses prepared the people to meet God, they were terrified, and they asked Moses merely to be God's spokesman. God agreed that he would use prophets to speak to them, whose writings were placed in the temple. However, God gave the people criteria for recognizing an accredited prophet. The people only had to listen to an accredited prophet, and others who merely presumed they were God's spokesman were to be stoned to death. When there was no prophet, the people had the writings of the prophets.

Catholic bibles have the same books as yours, and then some, because we compiled the Bible-you guys took it and sliced some books you didn't like out of it. But one of the scriptural principals we follow is that it was the Greek OT that most OT quotes in the NT come from, so that's the version of OT Scripture we chose-the LXX. Luther didn't like some of the doctrine-like purgatory-so disagreed 1100 years after the fact that they belonged there. A piece of 'trivia' for you-where is the Hannukah miracle? Maccabees. So, any Scripture that's good enough for Jesus is good enough for us.

 

[Root of Jesse]

No -- are you posting without having read the thread. I've already explained that Holy Tradition is based on the ghost of the Roman Empire.

You explained, but with no authority. Got a good reference?

 

[Root of Jesse]

I believe it is in Hitler's "Table Talk." That is where he expressed his true beliefs on Christianity. At any rate, John Cromwell's book sets it out, what Hitler's plan was for the Pope. I could look it up the support he cites -- but I don't know if I have it here in the house.

At any rate, what is your position? That Hitler wanted to be buddies with the Pope? Hmm... the Vatican embassy in Berlin did give a birthday party for Hitler every year, even after he died. At least the Protestants stopped that from becoming a tradition. Hitler and Mussolini were able to come to power due to agreements signed with the Vatican removing Catholic opposition. So... the Vicar of Christ got that part wrong, don't you think?

No, but it's not an either/or. You usually have to, at least outwardly, go along when you're a guest in a foreign country. Do you carry your Bible and read it to people when you're visiting Saudi Arabia? Didn't think so. You'd be put to death. The Vatican Embassy is just that-an embassy. I don't know that they threw birthday parties for him or not, but that means next to nothing. Protestants stopped the Vatican Embassy from holding birthday parties for Hitler? Laughable. The truth is that the Vatican did more than any other entity in Europe to protect those Hitler and Mussolini were trying to persecute. The only agreements the Vatican had with either party was for the Catholic Church to operate there legally.

No, I don't think the Vicar of Christ got that wrong, but even if he was wrong on that, it doesn't compromise infallibility.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You're not really reading the thread --- I never said the Catholic church advocated stoning Protestants. However, now that you bring it up, they do have a long, ugly history of hunting down Protestants and killing them in mass. In England, under bloody Mary, the Catholics hunted down people who had bibles and did study groups in their homes. They took their bible from them and burned them at the stake. The stench of human flesh burning was everywhere.

That's not "the Catholic Church". That's Bloody Mary.

However, such killing of Protestants did lead to the right to own a bible being the very first right of an Englishman, the principles on which led to the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment, which was an expression of the theory of denominationalism before 1947, when the Supreme Court changed it to "Separation of Church and State." However, Roger Williams was the first to use that phrase, and he did so as an expression of the theory of denominationalism, not secular humanism as the Court has made it.

I just did a response on why it is the bible we look to for truth.

On core doctrine, again, you are ignoring what already has been said it is in the thread.

There was never any prohibition anywhere by the Catholic Church to own a Bible. Maybe in Protestant Churches. But the idea of separation of Church and State stems from the state religion created by Henry VIII, and those of Germany and Switzerland, where you had to be what the government said you had to be. Otherwise, move, or die. That's a Protestant idea.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Protestants have a different bible due to depending on Scriptural principles for how the bible is determined. Have you read the whole thread?

When Moses prepared the people to meet God, they were terrified, and they asked Moses merely to be God's spokesman. God agreed that he would use prophets to speak to them, whose writings were placed in the temple. However, God gave the people criteria for recognizing an accredited prophet. The people only had to listen to an accredited prophet, and others who merely presumed they were God's spokesman were to be stoned to death. When there was no prophet, the people had the writings of the prophets.

So....?

 

[Root of Jesse]

You are twisting what I have said about the core. There are not so many cores. There is one, but there are many ways to express the core, and particular churches will add peripheral matters for membership in their church. The core is what is in common in all the churches' statement of faith as I have designated.

The RCC's Holy Tradition is a delusion that is an extremely ugly way of practicing the Christian faith -- which has resulted from it being a lie. It is better to have a smaller group united in truth, than a big group united in a lie.

That's where you're wrong. There's only one Truth. Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.

Again, I ask you to tell me what you think is one of our Holy Traditions, please?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Catholics have to misrepresent what the theory of denominationalism is... because the Protestants uphold the bible as truth, and the Catholics hate that... that is why they killed so many Protestants for owning bibles, until it became obvious that they could not kill them all, due to the printing press making so many bibles available and the strength of Protestant armies in northern Europe.

But that is all you are doing -- misrepresenting what denominationalism is. It is focusing on Spiritual unity, while the Catholics focus on institutional unity, which has lead to so much abuse in Christianity.

How many Churches did Christ institute?

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

No -- are you posting without having read the thread. I've already explained that Holy Tradition is based on the ghost of the Roman Empire.

on the ghost of the Roman Empire.

Empire of the West or of the East? Before or after the Barbarians? Before or after the Persecution (till 313 dC)

 

[Root of Jesse]

Do you know that the word "Protestant" is the term for us because the Catholic church forced it on us. Originally, Protestants called themselves "Reformers." Catholics had to have it changed, because it represented the truth, and they could not answer the Reformers honestly.

The bible notes that only inspired prophets speak for God, and we have their writings, Scripture. As I noted previously, the Catholic church added what was considered divine about the Roman Empire to Christianity (and the Empire was very much considered divine by ancient people and a special social paradigm by everyone in Europe up until the time of Napoleon), and they made up a new bible, and they placed themselves above the bible, and they acted as God's spokesman contrary to the principles of the bible.... and it was all a long ugly experiment that damaged the true spirit of the bible and Christianity.

Actually, the right term for Protestants was "Revolters". Besides, why would you accept a term of description if you didn't like it?

I agree with your statement "Only inspired prophets speak for God and we have their writings, Scripture". Who determined which prophets were inspired? Who determined that The Gospel of Thomas was/was not inspired? How about the Apocalypse of Peter or the Gospel of Peter?

Your next statement about adding what's divine about Rome, I have to ask you, like what? There's no 'new bible', the Church is not above the Bible. How is being God's appointed spokesmen not Biblical. What were the Apostles?

But let's look at your last statement...Did Christ institute a Church? Did he say it would come true in 1500 years? No, Christ was a man of action. He instituted it, just as he did Creation, and it was, boom!, like that. And he put Peter in charge as his right hand man. That is the Universal Christian Church-the Catholic Church.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

I believe it is in Hitler's "Table Talk." That is where he expressed his true beliefs on Christianity. At any rate, John Cromwell's book sets it out, what Hitler's plan was for the Pope. I could look it up the support he cites -- but I don't know if I have it here in the house.

At any rate, what is your position? That Hitler wanted to be buddies with the Pope? Hmm... the Vatican embassy in Berlin did give a birthday party for Hitler every year, even after he died. At least the Protestants stopped that from becoming a tradition. Hitler and Mussolini were able to come to power due to agreements signed with the Vatican removing Catholic opposition. So... the Vicar of Christ got that part wrong, don't you think?

You're kidding no?
Your historic perspective is hateful. I would not dare to say that Protestants were in favor of Nazis....